This study systematically evaluates the performance of Cox proportional hazards, exponential, and Log-normal survival models using a dataset of 230 breast cancer patients. Descriptive statistics reveal a predominance of female patients (96%) and various cancer stages, with the majority at Stage II (41%). The Kaplan-Meier curve illustrates a gradual decline in overall survival probability over 35 months, dropping to approximately 50% by 20 months. Significant differences in survival probabilities are observed based on smoking status (p = 0.006) and occupation (p = 0.001), while no significant differences are detected across cancer stages (p = 0.5) or treatment types (p = 0.1). The Cox model indicates that smoking status and specific occupations significantly affect hazard ratios, while immunotherapy shows a significant reduction in hazard (HR = 0.609, p = 0.018). The proportional hazards assumption remains largely intact across the covariates in the Cox model. The comparison of survival models using AIC and BIC values shows that the Log-Normal model performs best, with the lowest AIC (1255.282) and BIC (1302.461), indicating a better fit while accounting for model complexity. The Cox Proportional Hazards model ranks second with an AIC of 1385.218 and a BIC of 1424.698. The Exponential model, with the highest AIC (1402.989) and BIC (1464.875), fits the data least effectively. Overall, the Log-Normal model provides the best balance between accuracy and simplicity in this analysis.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.